Standing Committee F

[Part II]

[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]

Hunting Bill

[Continuation from column 798] 
 On resuming—

James Gray: I have a couple of points to make before we wrap up our debate on the group of amendments that we were dealing with before our break.
 It is disappointing that the Minister has thought it necessary this afternoon to rebuke and handbag everything that the Opposition have suggested. There is a long and distinguished tradition of Ministers listening carefully to what is discussed in Standing Committees and offering to re-examine certain points and consider tabling amendments on Report. It is unnecessary for the Minister simply to argue consistently against every word that we say, not because it is wrong but because it is the Opposition who are saying it. 
 That applies particularly to the question whether the Bill should allow two or 40 dogs to be involved in flushing or stalking. We believe that if one is flushing game out of a big forestry area, such as is found in many parts of Wales, having a large number of dogs—I snatched the figure 40 out of mid-air—is a good idea. The Minister seems to acknowledge that two is insufficient but in response to our points, he said only that if we wanted a number between two and 40, why did we not propose it and that he will not do anything about it because we did not table an amendment along those lines. 
 A reasonable way of approaching the Committee would be to admit that we have made an interesting point and that there may be circumstances in which two dogs were insufficient. He could say that although the proposed number of 40 was wrong because it would result in confusion for the group registration, there was some merit in what we have said about the number of dogs it takes to flush mammals out of certain covers. For him to say, ''I accept two is not enough but you didn't say anything else, so you can get lost'' is to allow bad legislation to become law and to prompt problems for the courts. He will do that not because the Minister has considered our points and disagreed with them, but for purely ideological reasons.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should first acknowledge that I have been perfectly willing to listen to what he has said on various occasions. On amendment No. 50, he admits that he plucked the number 40 from the air but expects it to be taken seriously. He has not argued for a number other than two; three or five, for example He has simply plucked a number from the air and said that we should respond
 to it more intelligently than the drafting of his amendment.

James Gray: The right hon. Gentleman summarises my position extremely accurately. I chose the number 40 from mid-air and am not arguing passionately in favour of it. I expect him to answer intelligently, although I realise that it is a forlorn aspiration that he should respond intelligently to anything. My point, to which the Minister plainly was not listening, was that if he acknowledges that two is too few, and even if 40 is the wrong number, it would be perfectly reasonable for him, as a Minister of the Crown, to say that we have made an interesting point and that he will ask his officials to examine it. He could consider the matter, take further evidence and come back to it on Report, but he will not do that.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend accept that Ministers are normally prepared to defend their proposals in such situations? I can remember many occasions on which the Opposition pressed me as a Minister to explain a particular point. The Minister has been asked politely why he has chosen the figure of two, but he has said only that he has chosen two because he has chosen two. That is surely not a satisfactory position for him to take, and—

George Stevenson: Order. That is far too long an intervention.

James Gray: I agree that that is not a satisfactory response. To pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, I well remember when he was the Secretary of State for the Environment and I was his special adviser. I heard him saying on many occasions in this Room that hon. Members had made interesting and useful points, which he intended to take away and ask for further advice on, and that he might or might not come back to them on Report.
 In reality, we rarely came back to them on Report because officials nearly always advanced a powerful argument for why something was as it was in the first place, but I do not ever recall my right hon. Friend simply dismissing the Opposition and saying—

George Stevenson: Order. I hesitate to intervene because we have had a long, long day, but I must say two things. First, I urge the hon. Gentleman to return to the amendment. Secondly, I have no intention of resurrecting the debate that we had before the break. I should make that clear.

James Gray: Quite right, Mr. Stevenson. I agree with you entirely. [Interruption.] The Minister is now sniggering from a sedentary position, but it was he who raised the matter; I merely answered his point.
 A further point on amendment No. 296, which we have not covered sufficiently, concerns falconry. The Minister dismissed it rather airily, but it is worth thinking about further. Falconers use dogs to seek quarry such as grouse, hares, pheasants and rabbits and flush them from cover. The training of young dogs often occurs without a hawk so that the falconer can concentrate on the dogs. For example, two mature cocker spaniels will be run with a third, immature cocker to encourage energy and enthusiasm and to demonstrate how to flush quarry from cover and obey 
 the falconer's commands. Three or more dogs will often be—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) has now said six or eight times from a sedentary position that I have said that already. I have often been told that the truer something is, the more it is worth repeating.

Peter Luff: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend is saying, which is marvellous; the Minister is already convinced by it and has said that he will re-examine the matter.

George Stevenson: Order. All hon. Members have shown during our Committee sittings that they are only too enthusiastic to intervene. They do not need to be encouraged or invited to do so, so I implore hon. Members to bear that in mind. It would help enormously.

James Gray: Thank you, Mr. Stevenson. I shall not encourage hon. Members at all; they are dreadful when one encourages them.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire has informed me that the Minister has already undertaken to look into the matter. I fear that I was not listening as carefully as I should have been. If that is the case, I apologise. I am grateful to the Minister and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

James Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 205, in
schedule 1, page 21, line 31, leave out subparagraph (5).
 Having had a relatively light-hearted interruption to our sitting, we turn to what the Opposition believe to be an extremely important matter; the deletion of the paragraph referred to in the amendment. The amendment would exempt the use of dogs below ground to flush out animals, which is not allowed under the exemptions in the Bill. The amendment would therefore correct a key inconsistency. Dogs are allowed to flush a fox from cover of all kinds. We had an interesting discussion on that a moment ago. They can flush a fox from woods, long grass or hollow trees. We have been told that it is perfectly acceptable to use a dog for flushing from all kinds of areas, but we will not be able to use a dog to flush from a drain underground. 
 One interesting question that might be discussed at greater length is what is meant by underground. If there is a bridge over a river and a fox is under the bridge, is that underground? It is certainly under the road, but above what would otherwise be known as the ground. Or are we simply talking about rabbit holes, badger setts and that kind of thing, which are truly underground? In the case of anything below the surface of the ground, there is no reason—using the justification of animal welfare—necessarily to ban the use of dogs underground. 
 The National Gamekeepers Organisation, an excellent organisation, is worried about some of the inadvertent effects of the Bill. I shall quote in full what it says, as it is important: 
''This crucial amendment allows for the use of terriers underground to flush foxes out for the purpose of pest control. It is especially vital for correct and safe management of the fox population. Forty six per cent. of gamekeepers use terriers in controlling foxes. The practice is invaluable where lamping and snaring are problematic. It is absolutely essential to the correct management of Britain's fox population.''
 In parentheses, Wales is a particularly good example, as about 33 per cent. of all foxes killed in the Welsh uplands are killed using terriers going to guns. The National Gamekeepers Organisation goes on to say: 
''If terrier work is not allowed to be 'exempt hunting', then half of Britain's gamekeepers will have to 'register' in order to use terriers. This would mean 2,000 applications, every one contested no doubt by opponents of field sports; no guarantee that the Registrar or the Tribunal would accept such applications; publication of the names of gamekeepers (a godsend to those intent on stealing firearms); and the unprecedented presence of animal welfare bodies on private land when terriers were being used. All this for the continuation of a necessary pest control activity that the Government is pledged to support.''
 The gamekeepers make a good point. 
 Let us imagine that, as a result of the Bill, the use of hounds for the pursuit of foxes in particular is outlawed and not a single pack of foxhounds is left in the United Kingdom. By what means will we kill foxes? No doubt some members of the Committee would say, ''Let's not kill them at all. Let's leave them.'' Certainly some hon. Members suffer from anthropomorphism, saying ''Let them go into an old folks' home and die a quiet death ultimately''. However, there is no realism in that. No one who knows anything about the countryside or who gave evidence to Burns or at the Portcullis house hearings would argue that case. 
 Everybody has agreed that the same number of foxes, or more, would be killed after the abolition of fox hunting, primarily by the use of terriers. That was acknowledged in Scotland, where the use of terriers underground was allowed to continue, for the good reason that that would be the primary method of dealing with foxes after hunting was banned. Gamekeepers in Britain today kill between 70,000 and 80,000 of foxes a year, a large percentage as a result of terrier work. That would stop if gamekeepers were not allowed to continue. 
 The reason is simple. Fox numbers have been the major factor in the decline of red grouse, partridge and all kinds of game birds. There is a serious depredation on game birds by foxes. That is why the Minister amended the utility definitions to include the words ''wild birds'', which is the same as ground-nesting birds. He acknowledges the depredations by foxes; he acknowledges that we must kill foxes if we are to avoid those depredations. By far the most satisfactory means of doing so, if we are not to use hounds, is by using terriers to locate the foxes and/or bolt them from underground. 
 Labour Members may not understand fully how that happens. We often hear propaganda that describes the terriers meeting a cornered fox underground and a terrible battle ensuing. The terriers are often injured and the fox is injured. The propaganda says: ''It is all awful and there is blood everywhere. Isn't that ghastly? How would you like to be down a hole, cornered by a terrier?'' That merely 
 shows that those who think in that way—I see that hon. Members agree with me—do not know how terriers work. 
 The terrier is put down a hole and, nine times out of 10, the fox comes out of another hole into the waiting guns, which then shoot it. On occasions the fox may go into a dead end, and the terrier controls it there. As soon as that happens, the terrier man digs straight down. He knows where they are by means of radio beacons round the terriers' necks.

Eric Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: In one moment, if I may.
 The radio beacon sends a signal to the terrier man on the surface. He digs straight down and shoots the fox where he finds it.

Eric Martlew: Foxes are not always tackled down in the earth. In the fells, where I come from, it is impossible to dig down because the ground is stone.

James Gray: If the ground were made of stone there would not be a hole.

Eric Martlew: Rubbish.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman says, ''rubbish'', but the fact that a fox has gone into a hole means that there is a hole. Stones may occasionally be piled together but, by and large, all foxes—whether they are in upland or lowland areas—dig their holes or go into holes created by badgers. We are not talking about caves in the stone because foxes generally go down animal-made holes.

Eric Martlew: The hon. Gentleman does not know the fells very well because above a certain height there are not many badgers, which means that there are no setts for foxes to go in. Foxes go into crevices from which they cannot be dug out. The hon. Gentleman is showing his ignorance.

James Gray: I am not sure that we need to lower ourselves to talking about ''showing ignorance''. It should be possible to discuss the way one can use terriers in the uplands without reducing ourselves to that level. If a fox goes into a crevice in the stone, by definition a terrier can also go in and out of the crevice. It would be rare in the uplands or anywhere else for there to be a hole in the stone with no other exit. By and large, if one sends a terrier into a hole, the fox comes out the other side or one digs down to it. Frankly, there would be no purpose in a terrier man sending a terrier down a hole that had no other exit and where the stone was so hard that they could not dig. What would be the purpose of sending a terrier into such a hole? The only outcome would be an underground fight, which either the terrier or the fox would win. What would be the purpose of doing that? Some 99 per cent. of terrier work results in either the fox coming out of one or other of the holes and being shot, or its being dug down to. If there are occasions of the sort that the hon. Gentleman describes in which there is no exit and the hole is made of stone—as a geologist, I find it hard to imagine such a hole—they must be extraordinarily rare.

Michael Foster: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he explain these two contradictions? In the past, he has claimed that hunting foxes with dogs is a method of managing the fox population to keep the young and the fit in place and to kill the old and the infirm, but a fox that is fit and cute enough to get out of the way underground is hunted by terriers. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire and I know a former master of the Croome and West Warwickshire foxhounds, who acknowledged to me that terrier work is not acceptable to many people who participate in traditional hunting with dogs. Many traditional hunters instinctively dislike terrier work.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman has made two bizarre points. In 30 years of hunting, I have never come across hunting people who do not like terrier work. He is, however, right to say that most hunting people prefer to kill a fox above ground. When one describes the bag, one says, ''I killed a brace above ground and another two underground.'' Killing foxes underground is not considered to be part of the chase. I have never heard anyone say that there is anything wrong with terrier work. Indeed, in hunting country terrier work is an incredibly important way to kill foxes. In most areas, stopping up is no longer practical or encouraged because there are so many holes. There is a strong chance that a fox will find a hole within a few hundred yards. If there were no digging or terrier work, there would be precious little hunting.

Hugo Swire: Is it my hon. Friend's experience that when terrier work is involved in the middle of a hunt the field is encouraged to move away from where that work is taking place?

James Gray: That is always the case. The field is always withdrawn and is rarely near where the terrier work is being done.
 I feel that we are straying from the point and that the hon. Member for Worcester has sought to make me stray. We are dealing not with hunting, which will be registered, but with the exemption for terriers killing prey, which is a separate matter.

Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

James Gray: I am seeking to answer a previous point, but I shall happily do so in a moment. Although the hon. Member for Worcester may have points to make about whether hunting people like terrier work, they are not pertinent to the amendment.

Rob Marris: I know from what the hon. Gentleman said that 46 per cent. of gamekeepers use their terriers for below-ground work. What do the majority do? What do the 54 per cent. do?

James Gray: The 54 per cent. do not necessarily have terriers or do the sort of job that requires killing vermin. They might work on different terrain or have a different job, in different circumstances. The fact that more than half—I think that the figure is of that order—of all gamekeepers require terriers for below-ground work is extremely significant. Shooting in this country would be very badly affected if all 2,000 gamekeepers had to apply to the registrar for
 registration to use dogs. That would have a devastating effect on the conservation of game and on rare ground-nesting birds, of which the fox is a major predator. Lord Burns acknowledged that when he said:
''We consider that it might be productive, in the absence of a ban''
 on hunting with dogs 
''to explore the possibility of introducing some form of licensing system, possibly on the lines of those which exist to regulate hunting in some other countries.''
 He also said: 
''In the case of terrier work, another requirement might be membership of the National Working Terrier Federation and adherence to its code conduct.''
 That implies that terrier work ought to be allowed. Professor David Macdonald, the distinguished researcher, said: 
''Shooting adult foxes . . . has particular welfare''
 difficulties ''for orphaned cubs''. He continued: 
''If a rifle is used to kill adult foxes at the cubbing earth, terriers may be the only way to ensure that dependant cubs are killed. The National Working Terrier Federation have a code of conduct that identifies best practice for humane and efficient use of terriers for pest control.''
 I do not recall anyone at Portcullis House saying that they would necessarily and absolutely rule out the use of terriers. 
 If we are to take the Bill seriously and to believe that the Labour party is, regrettably, keen to ban the use of hounds for the pursuit of foxes, and if we accept that the same number or a greater number of foxes will be killed in order to avoid the predation of lambs and ground-nesting birds, we have to realise that the only way that can reasonably happen is by allowing a sensible amount of terrier work. That is why it is important that terrier work is exempt under schedule 1, which is the purpose of amendment No. 205.

Nicholas Soames: I support my hon. Friend on this important amendment. If I may, I will detain the Minister and the Committee for a moment, because I want to go a little further than my hon. Friend on the importance of the use of terriers by keepers, and by moorland keepers in particular. The Minister comes from a Department where my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, left what I know the Minister will agree was a distinguished legacy.
 The Minister will be aware of the work done by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Game Conservancy Trust and many others on the serious problem of the tragic level of grey partridge numbers. Numbers are now reaching crisis levels. There is a similar problem—although it is not as serious—with the red grouse. With grouse, it is imperative that the moorland keeper has the use of terriers to operate below ground. In a moorland setting, the fox lives in his earth or den, and where snaring and other methods are not suitable it is essential that the keeper is permitted to use a terrier below ground to deal with the fox problem. In such 
 cases, that is the only way to get at the fox effectively. I am quite sure that the Game Conservancy Trust will have been in close touch with the Minister. I can provide information to him and his officials that will show the serious damage done to grouse due to fox predation. 
 As the Minister knows, the grouse is an extremely important bird to the make-up and the economic survivability of the uplands, and to those who work there. It is important that the Minister clearly understands that for moorland keepers not to be able to use terriers underground would have a serious effect on the levels of the red grouse population. I would like to draw the Minister's attention to a remarkable book entitled ''Grouse in Space and Time'', which features some of the most learned work ever undertaken on grouse. In that book, the Minister will be able to read about the effects of fox predation. 
 Numbers of the wild grey partridge have fallen to a pathetically low level. The most significant numbers of wild grey partridges can be found in East Anglia. There are very few places where the grey partridge survives in any viable numbers. It survives purely because it is the will of the people who own the land over which the shooting takes place. Their keepers do a huge amount of work to make it possible for the grey partridge to survive. There is a tremendous problem with the levels of the grey partridge. 
 I urge the Minister to accept that for keepers not to use terriers underground will be detrimental to the continued survival of such birds. Gamekeepers use terriers not only to locate but to bolt foxes from earths. It is essential that they are able to deal with the most formidable predator faced by the grouse and the grey partridge. 
 Rare game birds are also at risk from Mr. Fox. To a certain extent, they can take their own chance. Any keeper worth his salt, in a situation where there are large numbers of rare birds, will ensure that there is a proper balance. He will make sure that there are not too many foxes, but where the hunt is welcome he will ensure that there is always a fox to be found. 
 I shoot a great deal. It is always interesting for me to see estates where keepers have been instructed by the landowners to make absolutely sure that there are foxes present. A properly balanced, clean countryside will have a balance of wild animals present. That is part of a difficult but intricate network and web. To do away with the ability of keepers to use terriers underground would cause a desperately serious problem for two species: the red grouse and the wild grey partridge. I urge the Minister to take seriously the important nature of the amendment.

Edward Garnier: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I grew up in south-west Norfolk where there is no hunting because of the traditional prevalence of rabbit warrens, which made it dangerous to ride at speed, and I represent a constituency in Leicestershire where there has been hunting for a great many years. I therefore understand the points that he is making, and I hope that they find some purchase with the Labour Members.
 I want to deal briefly with one or two other points. First, I point out the inconsistency between sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 1, which states: 
''The third condition is that the stalking or flushing out does not involve the use of more than two dogs.''

George Stevenson: Order. For information, it is sub-paragraph (5) that the amendment would delete.

Edward Garnier: You are quite right, Mr. Stevenson. Sub-paragraph (5) would not involve the use of dogs below ground. That is inconsistent with the equivalent provision under paragraph 6, which would allow the use of dogs below ground when recapturing a wild mammal. I accept that paragraph 7(4) on the rescue of a wild mammal bans the use of dogs below ground when stalking or flushing out, but it is unclear why it is permissible to use a dog underground when recapturing a wild mammal. That seems to be an inherent contradiction. It is not clear whether the sub-paragraph that the amendment would delete is meant to protect the welfare of the fox or the stalked or flushed mammal, or whether it is done out of concern for the terrier.

Eric Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Is it in order for an hon. Member to talk to a member of the public when one of his colleagues is speaking?

George Stevenson: Order. I think not. I am finding it rather difficult to hear. Quite a bit of conversation is going on; I would ask everyone who wants to engage in conversation to do so outside.

Edward Garnier: I was disturbed by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) having a discussion with his neighbours, but I let that pass. I wanted to deal with the point that the hon. Gentleman was making.

Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Garnier: I am waiting for the hon. Member for Carlisle to pay attention.

Eric Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I do not want to create a disturbance, but do I really have to pay attention to the hon. and learned Gentleman? He is very boring.

George Stevenson: Order. Is it just me, or is it the time of day? Unusually, I detect a slight note of antagonism entering our debate, and I am sure that none of us wants that.

Lembit Öpik: I was only going to add to the antagonism, Mr. Stevenson, so I shall not say anything.

Edward Garnier: In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, the hon. Member for Carlisle—he has been listening assiduously to the arguments deployed by both sides—said that he thought it extraordinary that my hon. Friend should suggest that dogs should be used underground in the upland fells of Cumbria. He said that because the terrain was rocky—

Eric Martlew: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Edward Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish the point? If I am wrong, he can correct me. He said
 that the terrain would make it impossible for the dog to be dug out. I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman wants to say it again.

Eric Martlew: I was commenting on the fact that those involved could not dig them out. I was not saying that they do not use dogs, because I know that they do. It is obvious that the hon. and learned Gentleman is used to following hunts on horseback.

Edward Garnier: I do not think that there is a difference between my paraphrasing of what the hon. Gentleman said and what he just repeated. His intervention was interesting, because I do not think that anyone who owns and uses terriers would put them underground in a place where they could not dig them out if they got into trouble. Although the hon. Gentleman made a fascinating point, it was not on point. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire can comfort himself with that.

Colin Pickthall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Garnier: I cannot remember the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Colin Pickthall: It is West Lancashire, but I am from Cumbria. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman knows about limestone or gritstone country, but there are many thousands of acres in which an animal can go underground, between stones and into rocky crevices; they could never be dug out. One just cannot get into that area. It is as true of the tops in the Lake District as it is true of the gritstone country in the forest of Bowland and North Lancashire in the Pennines.

Edward Garnier: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know we are not used to sitting late these days. I find it extremely difficult to believe that a terrier man would send his dog into a place where it cannot be dug out. If the hon. Gentleman has examples of that, I am sure we will be told. That is why Labour Members, no doubt, will support the unamended version of subparagraph (5). I have made the point endlessly. I look forward to the Minister's answer.

Rob Marris: I should like the hon. Member for North Wiltshire to come back to a point that I still do not understand; it may well be my ignorance. I have had a brief from the National Gamekeepers Organisation, as I suspect he has, since he quoted parts of it. It said:
''Exempt hunting, as defined, excludes the use of terriers underground. Forty-six per cent. of gamekeepers use their dogs in this way for controlling foxes.''
 I still do not understand what the 54 per cent. majority does. I am sure we will come back to that later in the debate.

James Gray: Will the hon. Member give way?

Rob Marris: No, I will not. We want to make some progress. The other point made by the National Gamekeepers Organisation is that were the subparagraph to be left in—in other words, were this amendment to fail—gamekeepers would have to register. That would result in more than 2,000 applications. I know that they are already registered.
Lembit Öpik rose—

Rob Marris: No, I will finish. We want to make some progress tonight. Terrier men are already registered. In the case of the Masters of Fox Hounds Association and related associations, the terrier men must be on the register kept by the MFHA and must hold a current licence from it. The Welsh Farmers Fox Control Association keeps its own list of terrier men. They are already registered and going through a procedure. If this Bill becomes an Act, it would require them to become registered if they wished to get around the exemption. Clearly they are already prepared to do that, so I do not see what the problem is.

Peter Luff: I just wanted to check a point of fact. Gamekeepers are already members of the terrier organisations and use their own terriers. It is quite an unbureaucratic system. The system of registration proposed by the Bill is a considerably cumbersome one. With at least 2,000 registrations required by gamekeepers, the burden on the registrar—and, in due time the tribunal—would be considerable, keeping in mind that the prescribed animal welfare organisations have a right to challenge every such registration. This opens up Pandora's box. It is a very different form of registration. The bureaucracy argument is one that should weigh very heavily with the Minister in considering the matter. I should like the Minister to tell me why the subparagraph is here at all.
 It is undoubtedly the case that terriers are the only legal means of dealing with a fox that has gone to ground. It is very important to be able to kill these nocturnal predators by whatever means are available. Consequently, I do not understand why the only legal means of dealing with a nocturnal predator that has gone to ground has been ruled out. Scottish legislation specifically provides an exemption and allows the use of terriers. Later on, we will discuss with the hon. Member for Worcester the whole principle of the welfare implications when we come to new clause 11. I will not labour the point now. 
 My understanding is that the use of terriers enables gamekeepers to target the animals that are particularly active in taking birds because there are debris carcases outside the earth. It is possible, using terriers, to target which particular animal was taken out. There are huge advantages to that. If the Minister does not accept this amendment, it should be seen as a warning shot across the bows of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. It does not yet understand that this is the start of a slippery slope and is turning a blind eye to what is going on. 
 I hope that the Minister will look at it very carefully. This is the only legal means of dealing with animals that have gone to ground.

Alun Michael: This has been an interesting little debate, with questions raised on both sides about the way in which the activity is dealt with. I have some sympathy with the points made about gamekeepers and the way in which the measure would apply to their activities. I shall certainly look again at the comments made by Lord Burns. In paragraph 9.20, he said:
''Digging-out and bolting foxes is a complex issue because of the perceived needs in different parts of England and Wales.''
 That has been well illustrated by contributions from hon. Members on both sides. 
 The hon. Member for North Wiltshire referred to the Burns report, but it should be pointed out that Lord Burns was not all that enamoured of the activity. He continued, in paragraph 9.20, a little further on from the part referred to in the debate: 
''Possible options would be to ban it altogether; confine it to those areas where it is considered necessary as a means of controlling fox numbers or in the interests of animal welfare; make the practice subject to the general legislation on cruelty by removing the present exemptions for hunting; or improve monitoring by the hunts and by any independent monitors.''
 Burns left a number of questions to be answered in the legislation. 
 The amendment, as has already been said, would extend the exemption in paragraph (1) to permit up to two dogs to be used below ground to flush out a wild mammal without the requirement of registration. The hon. Gentleman said that he had never heard anyone involved in hunting express reservations about terrier work, but I have heard people express such reservations, although sometimes rather quietly and on one side from the general discussion.

Peter Luff: I have heard people say that, but it is important to understand that they call terrier work a necessary evil. They say that without it, hunting could not continue because it would serve no utilitarian purpose. They would not abandon terrier work, because they recognise the need for it, but they do not feel very comfortable with it.

Alun Michael: One hears different things being said. Certainly, one hears people say that they are uncomfortable with the activity. That reflects the comments that Lord Burns made. [Interruption.] I am sorry to see division on the Conservative Benches—[Interruption.]

George Stevenson: Order. I must ask for a little bit of quiet, because I am finding it difficult to hear the Minister, and we are almost next to one another.

Alun Michael: Hon. Members should listen to each other. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire was not trying to pick an argument—[Interruption.]

George Stevenson: Order. I do not want hon. Members to talk to each other too much in the Committee. That is my problem.

Alun Michael: I shall seek not to encourage them.
 I am sure that there is no intention on the Conservative Benches to have a disagreement, but there are issues to be teased out here.

Michael Foster: I should like to help my right hon. Friend the Minister to reply to the question posed by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. Quite a close friend of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire pointed me to the opposition of genuine horseback hunters to terrier work. As far as they are concerned, if the fox escapes from the chase, it is fair play to it and well done, and they should move on.

Alun Michael: It is quite clear that there are various views on the matter. That is why I think that the use of dogs below ground should not be the subject of an exemption from the Bill's provisions.

James Gray: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: I should like just to finish this point, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me. In view of the serious risk inherent in the activity to the welfare of the hunted mammal and the dog—that follows the comments made in the Burns report—it seems sensible, as the Bill provides, that in all cases where a person wants to use a dog below ground, that must be considered against the utility and cruelty tests.

James Gray: I am concerned about the credence that the Minister is giving to anecdotal and minority evidence from one person that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire and the hon. Member for Worcester have happened to meet. I could introduce the Minister to tens of thousands of hunting people who would say that hunting would not be possible were it not for the use of terriers underground. One individual may have said that he does not like terrier activity; I do not know why he took that view. Any book one cares to read or any evidence one cares to consider—such as that given at the Portcullis house hearings, or the views of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—accepts the necessity of using terriers underground.

Alun Michael: I understand entirely that the hon. Gentleman takes a passionate view of the issue and that he is unhappy that some people have expressed reservations. His hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester have referred to conversations, and I have referred to things that people have told me—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Wiltshire should not dismiss people's comments simply because he does not like what they say. I ask him to listen to what is being said about the issue.

Hugo Swire: Let me explain my standpoint. I do not much like the idea of terrier work, but I understand that it is an integral part of hunting and has to be done. That does not mean to say that I am making a huge moral judgment about it. Instinctively, I do not much like the idea of it, but without it, hunting as we know it cannot continue.

Alun Michael: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. That is a perfectly reasonable approach. There are people who do not like the idea of terrier work, but others directly involved in it have said much stronger things about it. That is why it seems entirely reasonable to have an arrangement in which the applicant will have to satisfy the registrar that the use of dogs below ground passes two tests: applicants must demonstrate evidence of the need to undertake the activity for pest control, and that it is likely to cause significantly less suffering than would be caused by any other reasonable method. Only then can the activity take place, and only in the circumstances of the application.
 The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex referred to wild grey partridge and red grouse. Registration—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is very keen for us to listen when he is speaking, so I would be grateful if he paid attention. Registration would be possible for 
 the use of dogs underground to protect rare and endangered species such as by preventing serious damage to game or wild birds, or to protect the biological diversity of an area. That is allowed under the utility test in clause 8, provided it can be shown that the use of dogs underground would also pass the test of least suffering. I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point about the activities of gamekeepers, which is why that element is allowed for in the Bill. 
 I recognise the concern that some gamekeepers have about the provisions of the Bill and their need to be able to carry out effective pest control to protect game living on their land. In view of the short debate we have had today, I am prepared to look again at both sides of that important equation, although I am not necessarily convinced that the outcome must involve the use of dogs below ground, which the amendment would exempt. There are some good examples of management without the use of dogs underground, but I intend to look more closely at some of the examples raised. 
 The case for using dogs underground in any circumstance should be examined by the registrar to ensure that the two tests are met. However, I am prepared to consider the arguments made in the debate and the issues raised by gamekeepers before we debate the matters further.

Edward Garnier: I want to be entirely sure that I correctly heard what the Minister just said. He said that it would be permissible, so long as the utility test was passed, to use dogs underground for hunting, but that it would not be when stalking a wild animal or flushing it out of cover. Have I wholly misunderstood what he said?

Alun Michael: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood. I was making the point that endangered species and biodiversity are referred to in the utility tests in clause 8. I raised that in relation to the point that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex made about grey partridge and red grouse.
 Lord Burns expressed some concerns about the nature of activity with dogs underground. The debate and several comments in this respect have shown that that is a serious issue that we must address, but it would not be sensible to create an exemption as the amendment suggests. However, there are matters that relate to the activities of gamekeepers as distinct from hunting activities. We need to get that right, and I undertake to consider both sides.

Nicholas Soames: May I please reassure the Minister that in my experience moorland and upland keepers are a thoroughly responsible and professional body of people who regard the use of these dogs as an essential part of their job and an important part of their armoury? It is important that the right hon. Gentleman understands that.

Alun Michael: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I do not think that it is sensible to go further than I have gone. The case for the amendment, I regret to say, is not made. I have accepted that the issue is difficult and needs to be considered with care.
 The hon. and learned Member for Harborough asked a question about stalking and flushing out, which are varieties of hunting. Under the terms of the Bill, underground work will always require registration.

Lembit Öpik: I agree with you, Mr. Stevenson, that hon. Members are getting a bit tetchy on account of the new hours. I suppose that that is one of the consequences. Maybe we need to start the evening sitting with a group hug or something like that. [Interruption.] That was joke, but it has caused some controversy on the Labour Benches—even that is controversial.
 If I understand the matter correctly, we are not debating the merits of terrier work and underground work; the question is whether there needs to be registration. If I am right, the question that relates to the amendment is whether all terrier work and beneath-ground work needs to be registered. I was fairly agnostic on that question until recently. Once again, I draw on the mid-Wales experience. As other hon. Members have already said, such work is regarded as an essential component of fox control in such areas, but I was agnostic. The $64,000 question was whether registration was needed. Those who feel the need to regulate such matters to ensure that animal welfare standards are protected could be supportive of the need to regulate all terrier work. However, people are made nervous if that regulation means that individuals who genuinely regard terrier work—[Interruption.]

George Stevenson: Order. It is not fair to the hon. Gentleman that such mutterings are going on all over the Room. I ask hon. Members to give some concern to that.

Lembit Öpik: I did not mind too much, because I heard hon. Members on both sides of the Room saying, ''Öpik's got a good point'', which makes me quite happy, and it is getting louder all the time.
 Terrier users would be concerned if the registration of their activity were a back-door way of banning the activity. That is the concern. If the Minister can assure us that it is not intended as a built-in ban through the back door, I am sure that hon. Members would be more relaxed about it. The question relating to democracy is a different one and applies to the whole Bill, and I do not want to get involved in that. However, it would be helpful if, for the record, the Minister, in an intervention or another short contribution, could give us an assurance about a non-controversial point—that he does not intend to ban terrier work through the back door, but will ensure that terrier work and the use of dogs below ground are subject to the utility considerations that we have already discussed.

James Gray: I am sure that the Minister's intention is not necessarily to ban terrier work or the use of hounds above ground—I suspect that it is, but it would appear from the Bill that it is not—and I certainly do not accuse him of seeking to ban the use of terriers underground. However, by requiring all
 2,000 gamekeepers in England to apply for every use that they want to make of a terrier under ground, he will fundamentally undermine shooting in England and the pest control methods that the Committee has discussed during the past two or three weeks.
 I use no less an authority that the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. James Morris of the SSPCA has said: 
''The Scottish SPCA is opposed to the use of terriers underground. However, the Society accepts that, under current conditions, dependent cubs are at risk when a vixen is shot in springtime. The prospect of cubs starving to death below ground is unacceptable in welfare terms.
For this reason, and in the absence of a close season, the Society was reluctantly obliged to concede the use of terriers''.
 The SSPCA, which is a friend of Labour Members, says that, reluctantly, it has been convinced of the essential nature of the use of terriers. The Scottish Parliament conceded the point, which is why it is in the Scottish Act. Everybody who knows about these matters understands that terriers must be used if we are to control pests in the way that we seek. 
 I am very much encouraged by the Minister's undertaking that he will think carefully about the exceptions that we have described and about the other matters that we have discussed in this short debate. For that reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Hugo Swire: I beg to move amendment No. 206, in
schedule 1, page 21, line 33, leave out subparagraph 6.

George Stevenson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 340, in 
schedule 1, page 21, line 38, leave out from 'under' to end of line 39 and insert 'close control.'
 Amendment No. 341, in 
schedule 1, page 23, line 1, leave out from 'under' to end of line 3 and insert 'close control.'.
 Amendment No. 342, in 
schedule 1, page 23, line 26, leave out from 'under' to end of line 28 and insert 'close control.'.

Hugo Swire: I hope that this small group of amendments will not prove acrimonious or too controversial. They refer to paragraph 1(6) of schedule 1 and the fifth condition, which is that
''(a) reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person, and
(b) in particular, each dog used in the stalking or flushing out is kept under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not prevent or obstruct achievement of the objective in paragraph (a).''
 Our amendment would remove the requirement in schedule 1 that a stalked or flushed wild animal be shot as soon as possible and that each dog is kept under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not prevent or obstruct the achievement of the shot. 
 I have no reason to doubt the Minister's honest intention towards the shooting community, but, despite what we have heard this afternoon, we are beginning to hear a wake-up call to shooters. Nothing that has gone on in the Committee to date will 
 convince the shooting fraternity that they will not, somewhere down the line, if these criteria are applied to them, be in considerable trouble. Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn, therefore, that the amendment also has the support of the National Gamekeepers Organisation. 
 Sub-paragraph (6)(a) refers to a competent person. I shall not dwell on that, as last week we almost exhausted the issue of who was and who was not competent. However, we must consider the questions of reasonable steps being taken and the mammal being dispatched as soon as possible. 
 Apparently, to qualify as exempt hunting, an attempt must always be made to shoot the flushed or stalked animal. In the opinion of many, that renders the exemption legally unsafe, because if the mammal is not shot, or at least shot at, a hunting offence has been committed. How can that work if, for instance, if a deer is flushed out on a game-shooting day, when the shooters are armed with shotguns that may not be legally used to kill a deer, or when the deer is out of season? 
 That requirement, Mr. Stevenson, could also lead to dangerous shooting. We have touched on that argument before, but it is worth repeating. A flushed fox does not run in a straight line towards someone who is armed and waiting to dispatch it. It might run the wrong way—an inconvenient way—towards a school playing field, houses or people nearby. That would make it impossible for the person who is meant be dispatching the fox to take a safe, clean shot. 
 That is why many gamekeepers use fast-running dogs, such as lurchers, to catch the flushed foxes as well as the terriers mentioned in discussions on previous amendments. I suspect that our amendment also inadvertently covers a line of beaters flushing a hare or a fox. I am pretty sure that the wild animal would not have to be shot, as to do so could prove dangerous to people nearby. Moreover, it may be the policy of a particular shoot not to target hares because of their low population density locally. Therefore, several issues must be dealt with in the schedule. 
 Amendments Nos. 340 to 342, which the hon. Member for Weaver Vale tabled, serve only to tighten the level of control under which dogs must be kept to comply with schedule 1. We could spend the rest of the evening happily debating—[Hon. Members: ''Not happily''.] Well, perhaps not happily, but we could spend the rest of the evening debating how one keeps a dog under close control or what constitutes keeping a dog under close control. How anything is kept under close control is a subjective judgment. I do not know whether any right hon. or hon. Members have tried to keep young children under close control while travelling on a train. That is not always easy. Moreover, it is not always easy to keep our wives or husbands under close control. ''Close control'' is, at best, a subjective term. 
 What I do not understand is how an amended wording would be better than the existing wording, which requires the dog to be 
''under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not prevent or obstruct achievement''
 of ensuring that, as soon as possible after it is found, the wild animal is dealt with in the manner sibilated in sub-paragraph (a). 
 It is still not clear what the hon. Member for Weaver Vale or the draftsman means by ''close control''. As I have attempted to demonstrate, it is a loose and subjective term. We must know what it will mean in practice.

Peter Luff: This matter was debated two or three weeks ago. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a shame that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale has not seen fit to consult the Scottish legislation and include its definition of ''under control''? That would have resolved matters satisfactorily and to the Committee's benefit.

Hugo Swire: My hon. Friend is right. Lessons can be learned from the Scottish legislation, both positive and negative.

Russell Brown: Soon after hunting legislation was introduced in Scotland, there were reports in the national press that, on eight occasions on which the Jedburgh hunt had been out, foxes were flushed out and dispatched by hounds. Does the hon. Gentleman consider those hounds to have been under control?

Hugo Swire: I do not consider much about the Scottish legislation, nor is it up to Scottish Members of Parliament to lecture us in Committee on what has or has not gone on in Scotland.

George Stevenson: Order. The hon. Member for Dumfries was entitled to raise the matter. He did so and the hon. Member for East Devon should get on with his speech.

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman was entitled to make his point and I am equally entitled not to allude to it.
 To return to the amendments, would a dog have to be on a lead or within a certain distance of a handler? Would it have to be in sight or within calling distance? The hon. Member for Weaver Vale needs to make that clear or we will reject the amendment.

Mike Hall: It is not my intention to detain the Committee with the amendments, but, as the hon. Member for Taunton said, it is a question of whether dogs are sufficiently under control or whether they are actually under control. My amendment would strengthen the definition. I have reached that conclusion because I am concerned that the Bill would allow the hunting of mammals through the back door by allowing dogs to dispatch them. I should like to explore with my right hon. Friend the Minister whether he is confident that, given the way in which schedule 1 is worded, dogs will not be allowed to chase and to kill.
 Whether a dog is sufficiently under control or actually under control is an interesting question, which, as the hon. Member for Taunton has said, we could debate all evening. I do not, however, propose to do so because the definition is straightforward.

Adrian Flook: On a point of order, I am the hon. Member for Taunton; my hon. Friend is the hon. Member for East Devon.

Mike Hall: I am tempted to say that I have not spotted the difference. That would not, however, be gentlemanly, and I apologise to both hon. Gentlemen for getting their constituencies the wrong way round.
 The hon. Member for East Devon asked to what the terms in the amendment refer. There is a precedent for the wording in previous legislation on farmers with dogs working with sheep. ''Under control'' means that a farmer would expect their dog to abide by their commands. If a dog gets out of hand, gets in the way of the dispatch of an animal that has been flushed and then dispatches the animal itself, would it be covered by the utility in paragraph 1 of the schedule, the recapture of a mammal in paragraph 6 or the rescue of a mammal in paragraph 7? If a dog actually dispatches a mammal, would it be classified as hunting or it would be exempt under the schedule? 
 I want to explore whether ''sufficiently under control'' or ''actually under control'', which has been defined in previous animal welfare legislation, will be sufficient with my right hon. Friend the Minister. I can walk my dog in an open field, which is a disused part of an air base in the Warrington, South constituency. My dog will walk at my heel and will be completely under control. I do not know whether I could do that with two dogs and I cannot guarantee that my dog would not run off if it saw a rabbit or a hare.

Colin Pickthall: Or a sheep.

Mike Hall: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire for his contribution.

Alun Michael: Amendment No. 206 removes one of the conditions under which stalking or flushing out must be conducted. It should be understood that that condition has two arms: first, that a mammal is shot as soon as possible after being found; secondly, that a dog is kept under sufficiently close control to achieve the objective of shooting the wild mammal.
 The amendment would widen the exemption for stalking and flushing out. It could undermine the Bill because it would permit abuse of the exemption by extending the flushing out into a prolonged and unnecessary chase. It would also allow the use of dogs to kill the wild mammal, a matter which raises animal welfare considerations that demand the application of the two tests. Therefore, I must resist the amendment. 
 On the three amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale, I sympathise with what he is trying to do, but I have been strongly advised that the words ''close control'' without further explanation would introduce a degree of uncertainty and I am sure that that is the opposite of what he intends. He wants to introduce greater certainty and tightness into the definition. The courts would be forced to re-invent the deleted words and it is likely that they would construe the concept of ''close control'' as meaning control sufficiently close to stop the dogs killing the fox before it can be shot. If we could be certain of the courts' interpretation I would have less concern about the 
 amendment, but it would reduce the certainty of the application of his clear intention.

Mike Hall: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's explanation, but will he say a few words about the worry of the chase-and-kill aspect of flushing and stalking? That is the point of the amendment and perhaps he would give an assurance on that.

Alun Michael: I sympathise with the point that my hon. Friend is making, but the words that he wants to delete achieve the same end—certainty that the dispatch must take place as quickly as possible and that there must not be additional chasing or a chase extending beyond the minimum necessary to achieve the purpose. The purpose must be achieved in the most expeditious way—there is no difference between us on that—and that involves keeping the chase to the minimum and ensuring that the dispatch is as humane as possible.
 I appreciate that my hon. Friend wants to tighten the requirement and that the amendments include a simple common English language reference to what he is seeking, but the danger is that not defining the relationship between that requirement and the objective—the utility element—would raise uncertainty. If the courts must re-invent the words in the Bill, there will be uncertainty about how they do that. Their interpretation might be tight or as expressed in the Bill as drafted, or it might be more lax so that the result might be the reverse of what my hon. Friend wants. 
 I accept my hon. Friend's point that the expectation is clear and that the chase must be kept to a minimum and the most humane and immediate method of dispatch must be used. I have great sympathy with that and we want it to be as clear as possible in the Bill. We shall return to the matter in later amendments and I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that I am responding positively to what he wants to do, but that the amendment would not have the desired result. In the light of that, I hope that he will not press the amendment. 
 On the words ''sufficiently close control'', if a dog gets out of hand and prevents or obstructs the objective of shooting a hunted wild animal that would be outside the exemption in paragraph 1 and what my hon. Friend is seeking would not be permitted under the Bill as drafted. It is a matter of interpretation that I would be happy to discuss further with my hon. Friend instead of detaining the Committee. The amendments could give rise to an offence of unregistered hunting under paragraph 1.

Hugo Swire: I am perturbed that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale is unable to distinguish between me and the hon. Member for Taunton. Perhaps he has reached that time in life when policemen look younger and I am sure that he can obtain help.
 The reasons behind our amendment are animal welfare and practicality. I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer and I wish that he had given as much time and thought to it as he did to subsequent amendments. However, you will no doubt be relieved 
 to hear, Mr. Stevenson, that we will not be pressing it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Nine o'clock till Thursday 6 February at five minutes to Nine o'clock.